you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 day ago (22 children)

I know a lot of people nowadays talk about nuclear as this abundant energy source which is much cleaner than fossil fuels but this is exactly what was being said around the 70s, then we had two huge nuclear disasters. There’s two generations here that have starkly different views of nuclear energy.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    The two huge nuclear disasters in question: Unreasonable demands of management and a lack of safety protocol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    We've already accepted the downsides: we're all held at gunpoint by thousands of nuclear missiles on a daily basis for the past 5 decades and yet there seems to be more people worried about nuclear power than that. We could just as well take advantage of the upside as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Different but wrong. I am always interested to know what people's guesses are for the total number of deaths caused by Chernobyl, because it's remarkably low in my opinion. It's by far the safest form of energy generation. Yes, even safer than wind power... why? Simply because wind is a very energy un-dense source of energy so you need to do a lot of construction to obtain it, and construction is a somewhat dangerous job - there'll be some small number of people who fall off wind turbines (or off rooves while installing solar panels, or whatever) and the huge number of turbines works out as swamping the small number of nuclear plants and tiny number of deadly nuclear disasters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    Different but wrong. I am always interested to know what people’s guesses are for the total number of deaths caused by Chernobyl, because it’s remarkably low in my opinion.

    There were roughly 350,000 innocent human beings who had to abandon their homes due to Chernobyl. The death total was only so low because hundreds of thousands of people had to literally flee for their lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 10 points 1 day ago (14 children)

    If anti-nuclear people knew anything about nuclear power, they wouldn't be anti-nuclear. The Chernobyl powerplant was an RMBK reactor, completely different in structure than other nuclear powerplants. The fossil fuel industry loves misguided opposition against nuclear energy. Read about the RMBK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago

    You support nuclear for psychological reasons, not for technological reasons. It gives you a sense of superiority over your fellow human beings. The real reason nuclear is a dead technology is that it's simply not cost competitive with renewables and batteries, but you're here pretending that it's a bunch of scared superstitious ignorant environmentalists that are dragging it down. THOSE common fools just don't know the science. THOSE morons just aren't rational actors like you are. THEY are just to lazy to read about nuclear plant designs.

    You're engaged in a comforting form of self-delusion. The actual barriers to nuclear have nothing to do with people just being irrationally afraid of fission. But you ignore this because it gives you a sense of intellectual superiority.

    You support nuclear for psychological rather than technological reasons. Fission is just your sports team.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (8 children)

    Ask them how many people died at Fukushima

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (7 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    That's not what that article says

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    The text of the article is what I looked at, where they're a lot less definite.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    The 2202 deaths claim is from this article.

    If you don't trust that news site, directly in the article to the left of the info box:

    As of 27 February 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government counted 2,129 "disaster-related deaths" in the prefecture.

    That claim is supported by one government report, two scientific papers and one news site.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    And then you have to see what a "disaster-related death" is.

    Certainly you didn't have thousands of people dying at the site, which is what someone might understand if they had taken your numbers at face value.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    And the nuclear lobby likes people like you.

    Where would Germany get uranium from, by the way?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments